On 04/10/2011 15:35, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 09:06:18AM -0400, Yonik Seeley wrote:
I don't think we necessarily need a description where every bit must
match (i.e. the goal should be general documentation for
understanding, not specification for implementing).
+1
The file format documentation is not a spec. If it was, you'd have to fix
the implementation of Lucene to conform to the spec every time there was a
discrepancy.
Still, IMHO at a minimum we should make sure that we faithfully document
the file names used by each codec and their rough purpose, otherwise it
will be difficult even to discuss problems with users.
So far the list of possible file names was relatively small and
well-known, e.g. people knew that a prx file contained postings, and its
size would indicate this or that. We are going to have dozens of codecs
soon, and if I come up with a codec that creates, say, abc and xyz files
then without knowing what they logically correspond to, it will be
difficult to troubleshoot. Similarly, if I discover files abc and xyz in
my Directory I should be able to tell whether they belong there.
--
Best regards,
Andrzej Bialecki <><
___. ___ ___ ___ _ _ __________________________________
[__ || __|__/|__||\/| Information Retrieval, Semantic Web
___|||__|| \| || | Embedded Unix, System Integration
http://www.sigram.com Contact: info at sigram dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
